Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies

Other Views:
Ken Ham

Ken Ham Flip-flops in his new revised & expanded edition of The
Answer Book.

The Answer Book, 1990

The Answer Book, 2000

Continental Drift

In the first edition there is a whole chapter (2) showing how wrong continental
drift and plate tectonics is. In the revised edition chapter 11, there is
evidence for Biblical plate tectonics that occurred during the flood and
afterward.

Speed of Light

The first edition has several pages supporting the slowing down of the
speed of light (pp.189-192). Norman's and Setterfield's evidence is set
forth. In the revised edition it is reduced to three paragraphs (p.97) with
the conclusion, "In short, none of the theory's defenders have been
able to answer all the problems raised"(p.97).

Dinosaurs Today

Lock Ness Monster (1990, 35)

There is no mention of the Lock Ness Monster as a possible plesiosaur as
in the first edition (p.35).

Plesiosaur sightings (1990, 39)

In his new edition there is no reference to plesiosaur sightings except
to note that the supposed Japanese plesiosaur was not a plesiosaur (p. 267
note). Other carcasses have washed up on the beaches of New Zealand which
turned out to be basking sharks.

Lack of Moon Dust

In a footnote (p.267) of the revised edition, the lack of Moon dust should
not be used as evidence for a young universe. May I be so bold as to suggest
a chapter on all the evidence that was once thought to indicate a young
earth, but no longer does instead of a very small footnote.

Conclusion

I am glad that Ken Ham has changed his mind about Continental Drift and
Plate Tectonics. I am glad that he no longer supports the theory that light
has slowed down. I am glad that he no longer claims the sightings above
as plesiosaurs, but there are many, many more problems with the book that
still need to be corrected.

--written by Dr. Stephen C. Meyers

Problems with the Revised & Expanded Answers Book

Dinosaur Blood???

Three times in this revised book there is the reference to dinosaur blood
being found (86, 193, 246-7). The key article that is quoted is "The
Real Jurassic Park" by Mary Schweitzer and Tracy Staedter and published
in Earth, June 1997, pages 55-57. It seems to me that Ken Ham has
not read this article very carefully.

First of all, the article does not claim to have found dinosaur blood.
The authors conclude, "So far, we think that all the evidence supports
the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme
and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident
enough to come right out and say, 'Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds
left in its tissues'"(p.57).

Secondly, blood cells can easily fall apart, but the proteins heme and
hemoglobin can survive for a very long time. A heme is a very stable structure
of a ring like organic compound called porphyrin bound to an iron atom (p.56).
Porphyrins have been found in sediments dating back to the Carboniferous
Period which was 286 million years ago (p.56). This is at least 100 million
years before T. rex. So it should not be surprising to find heme.

Thirdly, there are major problems in finding dino DNA because DNA is everywhere.
The authors state, "Indeed, running the T. rex bone through a battery
of tests, we discovered DNA--but it was the DNA of fungi, bacteria and insects,
clearly not of dinosaurs" (p.56).

Finally, there is a lack of understanding of the formation of fossils.
The T. rex bone is called "fresh" as if the T. rex just
recently died (p.246). The dinosaur bones are also called "Unmineralized
('Unfossilized')" (p.193). This is simply not true. Most of the
bone was mineralized except deep down inside the bone (p.55), probably because
water had penetrated the inside of the bone.